Department of the Army. Pamphlet –3. Personnel Evaluation. Evaluation. Reporting. System. Headquarters. Department of the Army. provide extensive information about AR ( ) Latest articles in Army Regulations ·» AR ·» AR provide extensive information about DA PAM ( ).

Author: Vull Mezijas
Country: Myanmar
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Art
Published (Last): 12 November 2006
Pages: 97
PDF File Size: 20.50 Mb
ePub File Size: 5.71 Mb
ISBN: 745-5-19924-443-8
Downloads: 76548
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kagagul

See also Henley v. More specifically, once a senior rater completes an OER, the Army compares the senior rater’s evaluation of the rated officer’s potential to the senior rater’s rating history for all other officers of the same grade for the same rating period, and then determines how the particular rated officer performed in relation to the “center of mass,” or the median ranking of officers of the same rank who were evaluated by the same senior rater.

The importance of the OER to personnel actions, especially those concerning selection boards, makes it necessary that this day suspense be met. More importantly, the administrative record includes an order dated March 12,reassigning Davis to the nd CSH, located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, effective March 15, Plaintiff Davis is a licensed and board-certified adult nurse practitioner and family nurse practitioner.

United States District Court, W.

AR Officer Evaluation Reporting System :: Military Publications – Army Regulations – USAHEC

It hardly seems arbitrary for the ABCMR to refuse to credit Davis for training she did not receive, even if the reason she did not receive the training may not have fegulation her fault.

We think you have liked this presentation.

Auth with social network: We must understand and use the Officer Evaluation Reporting System to provide regulatioj of performance and potential in order to provide the Army with the best leaders. Plaintiff, however, failed to file a Local Rule A rating chain should “correspond as nearly as practical to the chain of command and supervision within an organization” and “ties the rated officer’s performance to a specific senior-subordinate relationship” in order to “allow[] for the proper counseling to develop.

Additionally, Davis contended that she “never saw a published rating chain,” “was never informed as to who [her] rater and senior rater were” and “never had [a] face-to-face counseling [session]. Failure to file timely objections may waive the right to rsgulation the District Court’s Order. As defendant points out, the affidavits submitted by Davis in support of her cross-motion for summary judgment are not part of the administrative record and therefore may not be considered when reviewing the ABCMR’s decision.


To provide junior officers information on the Officer Evaluation Reporting System (OERS). PURPOSE.

Both Davis’ affidavit and Port’s affirmation include factual allegations, but neither sets forth numbered paragraphs responding to each of defendant’s statements as required by Local Civil Rule T at ; Compl.

According to AR. AR provides that, at the conclusion of the rating period, the rated officer is generally responsible for verifying the administrative data in the OER, entering regulatin information, signing the OER and forwarding the OER to the rater.

Nat’l Credit Union Admin. Raters evaluate an officer’s professional competence, ethics, performance and potential. No Case or Topic can be added. Log In India UK.

Both officers also opined that it was not unusual for official attachment orders to be created months after a soldier reported to a new unit. To make this website work, we log user regilation and share it with processors. Rather, as Davis points out, the “APA requires the Army, like any other agency, to follow its own administrative procedures,” Crane92 F.

DAVIS v. HARVEY | E.D.N.Y. | Judgment | Law | CaseMine

In her narrative comments, Hinds wrote that Davis “worked well with guidance,” “demonstrated competence reyulation all assigned tasks,” and “accepted all tasks willingly and performed them satisfactorily,” revulation stated that Davis had the “potential to function in and meet the requirements of the next higher grade.

The rater should be the officer “most familiar” with the rated officer’s day-to-day performance for at least 90 calendar days during the rating period, or, with respect to Reserve officers admy Davis, calendar days during the rating period. Davis now seeks this court’s review of the ABCMR’s final decision denying her appeal, claiming that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. We must understand and use the Officer Evaluation Reporting System to provide evaluation of performance and potential in order to provide the Army with the best leaders.

Arbitrary and capricious review is “narrow” and “particularly deferential. It seems logical to conclude that, under those circumstances, Davis regulatkon have submitted a statement from her actual other supervisor, and perhaps regulxtion other reserve officers who worked with her, confirming her assignment to a different unit tegulation most of the rating period and describing the quality of her work there.


The senior rater then evaluates the rated officer’s potential and forwards the OER on for processing. However, the ABCMR found that Davis’ personnel records did not “show” that she received a hardship discharge, and it therefore follows that there was nothing to expunge.

Architects of Integration and Equality and a number of articles related to the nursing profession. The 8 th Medical Brigade is “subdivided into various subordinate units,” including numerous Combat Support Hospitals. Davis further contends that the report was not sent outside the 8 th Medical Brigade until after August 12,in violation of Army regulations that plaintiff regulatipn require prompter distribution.

A, although the Stipulation states that it is attached as Exhibit D. Hinds recalled that Davis reported for duty with the 8 th Medical Brigade in November or December of and, like Cupit, stated that “it was not unusual for orders to follow” after an officer reported for duty.

The ARPERCEN Review Board determined that “[t]here is no evidence that is clear and convincing enough to overcome the presumption of regularity to delete the OER” and “[t]here is no evidence that the rating chain failed to execute their designated responsibility to the rated officer. Provides evaluation information for use by successive members of the rating chain, emphasizes and reinforces professionalism, and supports the specialty focus of Officer Professional Management System OPMS.

Food and Drug Admin. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system.

Motion for summary judgment: Davis alleges that despite her “repeated requests and complaints,” Lieutenant Colonel Bernard failed to follow up on, finalize or submit the draft OERs. In their narrative comments, the raters and seniors raters who completed Davis’ previous OERs described Davis in glowing terms and detailed her many accomplishments.